Citation Nr: 20041671 Decision Date: 06/18/20 Archive Date: 06/18/20 DOCKET NO. 17-02 455 DATE: June 18, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 1966 to April 1968, to include service in Vietnam from October 1966 to October 1967. His decorations include the Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The issues on appeal were previously before the Board in July 2018, when they were remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denials and returned the case to the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. When this case was remanded in July 2018, the Board requested, among other things, that the AOJ ask the Veteran to identify all VA and non-VA health care providers who had treated him for the disabilities at issue, and then take appropriate steps to obtain the records identified. In September 2018, the Veteran reported that all of his treatment was obtained at VA facilities. Thereafter, in April 2019, he submitted a VA Form 21-4142a (General Release for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)), reporting treatment through the VA Caribbean Healthcare system from 1970 to “present.” That suggests that he has received VA treatment since the records of such treatment were last associated with the claims file in November 2016. Because such records, if they exist, are deemed to be in VA’s possession for purposes of adjudication, additional development is necessary. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). A remand is also required to obtain an addendum medical opinion. The Veteran was afforded a VA mental disorders examination in January 2020. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a mental disorder, and reported that there were no “formal psychiatric findings or treatment at the San Juan VA or any other mental health institution.” However, the record reflects that in June 2015, the Veteran was seen by a VA psychologist in response to a referral from his primary care provider. The provider recorded a diagnosis of “[rule out] [a]djustment [d]isorder with [d]epressed [m]ood.” The Veteran was scheduled for a follow up appointment and there are no records of a follow up visit. Nevertheless, this evidence appears to conflict with the January 2020 examiner’s statement that there was no psychiatric treatment at the San Juan VA. A remand is necessary for an examiner to consider the evidence of that treatment. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed, make arrangements to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who previously offered opinions with respect to the Veteran’s mental health in January 2020. The examiner should be asked to review the expanded record and prepare a supplemental report indicating whether the Veteran has had a mental disorder at any time since December 2013 (when he filed his claim for service connection) and, if so, whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that any such disorder that had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, service. In so doing, the examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran’s VA psychiatric visit in June 2015. If the January 2020 examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion(s) requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.